I can’t believe it has been 4 years since the Federal raid in Ely. Boy the government takes a long time to build a case.

Ely resort owners charged

If found guilty, will it just be a fine, or could they serve time for this? I remember hearing about the DNR sneaking into the woods and photographing and building a case for weeks.

Tony

GopherAdventure: "If found guilty, will it just be a fine, or could they serve time for this? I remember hearing about the DNR sneaking into the woods and photographing and building a case for weeks.


Tony"

I might be wrong but I don’t think the DNR worked on this much as it is a Federal Case. It appears they have 4 years of evidence Not just weeks—-that seems a little crazy to me. The Canadians were involved as well in collecting evidence. Usually the Feds do not charge anyone unless they have a solid case. As to whether it is a fine or jail I have no idea. I don’t condone fishing over the border but seems like way overkill to put people in jail over it. The Feds tend to be tough though and use enforcement to set a future example.

T

Did they let it go on for 4 years and just watch them to collect evidence? When the first offense occurred why didn't they bust them and fine them at that point?

Northwoodsman: "Did they let it go on for 4 years and just watch them to collect evidence? When the first offense occurred why didn't they bust them and fine them at that point?"

I don’t think that is why it took so long. They confiscated the ciscos Jim (TGO) bought from them for evidence back in December 2016. They were collecting the evidence back then.

Old Thread.

DNR was involved. To what extent, I don't know. The release says "This case is the result of a joint investigation by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Natural Resources, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with assistance received from the 1854 Treaty Authority, the United States Forest Service's Office of Law Enforcement and Investigations, the International Boundary Commission, and the Duluth Police Department. "


My understanding is that the reason they didn't just ticket them after the first known offense is because this was't seen as a simple one-time offense, but as a criminal conspiracy.

The law also prohibits acquisition or purchase. ("it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants...") -- so I wonder if there will be suits against the bait shops that purchased and re-sold?


As for the punishment? I'd guess the feds are pursuing felony charges.

"Violations of the Lacey Act carry serious penalties for companies and individuals. In addition to civil fines and forfeiture of goods, criminal penalties may also attach to the companies and individuals found to have knowingly violated the Act. A misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act is punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of $200,000.00 for companies and $100,000.00 for an individual. Felony culpability is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $500,000.00 fine per violation for a company and $250,000.00 for an individual."

Embarrassing to be caught as a sneak and to be known as someone who stole from the Canadians, generally the sweetest people and our best allies.

I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage.

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

Sure hope not. Even if LaTourelle's went under from this (and I hope they don't!), wouldn't somebody else want that contract? I think both the USFS and the contractor make money on that deal. I know LaT's has been operating it for quite a while, but USFS was taking bids on that contract as recently as 2018 so it's not out of the realm of possibility that somebody else would be operating it in the future.

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

Bingo!

I have know LaTourells all my life. And their is a lot more to the story.

This is not about felony charges for minnows.

It is about closing the truck portage and banning motors.

LaTourells where not netting illegally or on the Canadian side. Why were thy not ticketed on the Canadian side 4 years ago?

Moosepatrol: "

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

Bingo!

I have know LaTourells all my life. And their is a lot more to the story.

This is not about felony charges for minnows.

It is about closing the truck portage and banning motors.

LaTourells where not netting illegally or on the Canadian side. Why were thy not ticketed on the Canadian side 4 years ago? "

I fail to see the point of this paranoia/speculation. BWCA motor usage is far bigger than one outfitter or one portage. Consider the possibility that this is about a group of people being held accountable for violating the law. Maybe, just maybe, it's that simple. The fact that they used the portage -- which belongs to federal government and which they are only contracted to operate -- as part of the operation, probably means that contract is done. But it doesn't mean the portage is done. The USFS took sealed bids on that contract in 2018 and they still ended up awarding the contract to LaT. The call for bids specifically stated "The Forest Service reserves the right to reject any and all bids." So if they wanted that portage closed, it could've been done 2 years ago.

The same things were being said 4 years ago -- I quote from that thread from TGO: "Bob LaTourell has been trapping Ciscoes for me the last 17 or 18 years, and his traps are always on the American side of the river at Prairie Portage."

Well.... OK, I guess. Except here we are with federal charges and a 4 years of evidence to the contrary? I have a hard time believing the federal government spends this much time and money on a case without concrete evidence that the Lacey Act was repeatedly violated.

People loved Jim (TGO) and people love Bob (LaT) because they've done business with them for years, they associate them with a place where they've made a lifetime of memories, and they don't want to believe they could've been involved in something like this. Confirmation bias is real.

Just curious to know if they will be tried in the United States or in Canada or perhaps in both countries, depending as to what the treaty allows? Canadian law is different than the US law, and probably won't have the same legal rights in Canada as they will in the United States.

Northwoodsman: "Did they let it go on for 4 years and just watch them to collect evidence? When the first offense occurred why didn't they bust them and fine them at that point?"

My understanding, and I'll emphasize I don't know for sure, is that they collected evidence form 2012-2016--for approximately 4 years. Then they did their raids and evidence confiscation in 2016---then spent the next 4 years compiling/building a case. Federal prosecutors have very high conviction rates and are notorious for wanting sure fire cases before setting charges.

So that appears to be an 8 year project. As someone else pointed out it wasn't as simple as just fishing over the imaginary border of Canada and the US in the BWCAW but it was the sale/profit and possible involvement of other groups/people. I don't know how much money was exchanged but I am guessing there had to be a lot the government to spend resources like this. If not seems like a waste of resources---not that there shouldn't be a consequence, just that those are our tax dollars and I want them spent wisely.

All of this is conjecture---it took 4 years to bring charges...how long before they try the case?

T

I know some about the Lacey Act as my company imports raw materials and so we have to go through some training. I believe a misdemeanor charge carries a possibility of a fine up to $100,000 for an individual and up to 1 year in prison. The mention of thousands of dollars would lead me to believe that this would be a misdemeanor. The cases we were given for examples involved hundreds of thousands or millions and almost always were misdemeanors. Also in those cases, I never saw where anyone went to jail. I'm sure it has happened, but never did I see that. Always a fine. The fines could also be higher than the $100,000 if any kind of restitution needs to be made. Now every case we were shown as examples involved medium to larger corporations and not a family owned business, so this could be different. Also, the Lacey Act is applicable to anyone who buys and sells illegally sourced imported goods. All buyers/resellers are culpable if they know or should know the illegal source of the goods. Certainly if the bait shops or gas stations have no way of knowing that these were being caught across the border, then I don't think they would be charged, but I'm guessing that is why they were raided to find any evidence of "awareness".

As for this case, I'm an outsider as I don't know any of the individuals involved, but it sure seems to me that 8 years is a bit ridiculous to accomplish what they seem to want to accomplish and that being to stop illegally harvested Cisco. I'm thinking the four years to charge them stems from the case sitting on someones desk for 3 1/2 years and they decided to finally move on it. At least I hope. If our tax payer money paid for the prosecutor and investigators for 4 years, the fines won't hardly cover it. 4 years also makes this case so much harder to prosecute. They mentioned a half dozen agencies involved. Are all the possible witnesses still available? A good lawyer could probably poke all kinds of holes in testimony from witnesses trying to remember 4 years (or more) back. Again, just ridiculous. It probably will never make it to court though. Since charges are now filed, the defendants can look at the evidence. Depending on what they see, I'm guessing they will come up with some sort of settlement. Again, just a guess as I know nothing about the case.

thlipsis29: "Just curious to know if they will be tried in the United States or in Canada or perhaps in both countries, depending as to what the treaty allows? Canadian law is different than the US law, and probably won't have the same legal rights in Canada as they will in the United States. "

The press release above is from the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Minnesota, so it will be tried in U.S. District Court.

All for some ciscoes. Can it really have been that lucrative of a venture to risk that much or was it just more about flaunting the rules and getting away with it. A townie pride thing. Don’t know, don’t care, I’ve never seen a cisco in my life. Just sayin.

thefourofus: "I know some about the Lacey Act as my company imports raw materials and so we have to go through some training. I believe a misdemeanor charge carries a possibility of a fine up to $100,000 for an individual and up to 1 year in prison. The mention of thousands of dollars would lead me to believe that this would be a misdemeanor. The cases we were given for examples involved hundreds of thousands or millions and almost always were misdemeanors. Also in those cases, I never saw where anyone went to jail. I'm sure it has happened, but never did I see that. Always a fine. The fines could also be higher than the $100,000 if any kind of restitution needs to be made. Now every case we were shown as examples involved medium to larger corporations and not a family owned business, so this could be different. Also, the Lacey Act is applicable to anyone who buys and sells illegally sourced imported goods. All buyers/resellers are culpable if they know or should know the illegal source of the goods. Certainly if the bait shops or gas stations have no way of knowing that these were being caught across the border, then I don't think they would be charged, but I'm guessing that is why they were raided to find any evidence of "awareness".


As for this case, I'm an outsider as I don't know any of the individuals involved, but it sure seems to me that 8 years is a bit ridiculous to accomplish what they seem to want to accomplish and that being to stop illegally harvested Cisco. I'm thinking the four years to charge them stems from the case sitting on someones desk for 3 1/2 years and they decided to finally move on it. At least I hope. If our tax payer money paid for the prosecutor and investigators for 4 years, the fines won't hardly cover it. 4 years also makes this case so much harder to prosecute. They mentioned a half dozen agencies involved. Are all the possible witnesses still available? A good lawyer could probably poke all kinds of holes in testimony from witnesses trying to remember 4 years (or more) back. Again, just ridiculous. It probably will never make it to court though. Since charges are now filed, the defendants can look at the evidence. Depending on what they see, I'm guessing they will come up with some sort of settlement. Again, just a guess as I know nothing about the case. "

Don't forget the feds 97% conviction rate.

Mike

Porkeater: "

The press release above is from the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Minnesota, so it will be tried in U.S. District Court."

Duluth is the closest so I'm guessing it will be there.

My LEO co-worker was on the raid, I asked him about it afterward and he was tight lipped as usual. He did tell me he was in The Great Outdoors bait shop. I'm a retired firefighter, non-LEO for the US Fish and Wildlife Service out of Detroit Lakes, MN and Alaska.



Lacey Act, Wiki

timatkn:
just that those are our tax dollars and I want them spent wisely.

I can see you may never have worked on a government funded job. Lots of wasted money on them. Especially the Sec.8 Public housing jobs. Worked on one for a year and half. Rehabing houses. By the time we went back 2 months later for are inspections I'd say 50% of the work we did was trashed. It was sad.
It was like we were inconveniencing them when we did the work. Some of them got moved out the 3 weeks when we were in there house.
They got $1500 a week if they had to move out. A company came in packed all there stuff for them and moved it to a storage place for them. When they came home they had new windows with trim and blinds, entry doors, storm doors, upgrade fuse boxes, new furnace and air conditioners. Some houses even got new siding and roofs.
A few house had to be bug bombed before we could even go in them they were so bad.
Most of them don't care because it not there house.

But back to the topic if they did the crime I hope they get some time or a nice big fine. Thats for the courts to figure out

“ Don't forget the feds 97% conviction rate.

Mike”

Yeah and that’s part of the problem as well. If the goal is High conviction rate over what’s right or wrong. The Feds have unlimited resources and the rest of us don’t. That is why most people will settle long before it goes to trial and I predict the same here without having any knowledge of evidence. The threat of a year in jail and $300,000 in fines plus legal costs would Make most want to settle. But as stated above, if the crime was committed, some sort of restitution is appropriate.

thegildedgopher: "

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

Sure hope not. Even if LaTourelle's went under from this (and I hope they don't!), wouldn't somebody else want that contract? I think both the USFS and the contractor make money on that deal. I know LaT's has been operating it for quite a while, but USFS was taking bids on that contract as recently as 2018 so it's not out of the realm of possibility that somebody else would be operating it in the future."

It will be rebid and someone will grab it. He has done things in the past also-will leave it there.

Pinetree: "

It will be rebid and someone will grab it. He has done things in the past also-will leave it there."

I don't know the first thing about it, but I don't think that this way of expressing it is fair. I think you should either say what you know, and allow someone to defend, or to say nothing.

It will be rebid and someone will grab it. He has done things in the past also-will leave it there."

Who is he?

What did”he” do? Found guilty of breaking the law?

Or “he”did something you didn’t like?

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

I have noticed many missing souls. I get it.

While not saying anyone did anything illegal or skirting the system, per previous post..
How a group staying at La T. get a weeks worth of day motor permits 18 yrs in a row to fish Basswood....
Again not saying somebody is doing anything illegal.
Maybe skirting the system... idk....
I've seen with my own eyes boats leave LaT.
Enter the BWCA in the morning. Come back out. Then go back out in the evening... Does this not go against the rules....


Oh boy .... now I did it.....

Or get like 80% of available permits....
Again would just like to know

Moosepatrol: "

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

Bingo!


I have know LaTourells all my life. And their is a lot more to the story.


This is not about felony charges for minnows.


It is about closing the truck portage and banning motors.


LaTourells where not netting illegally or on the Canadian side. Why were thy not ticketed on the Canadian side 4 years ago?

"

In previous articles the Feds claim they have video/photographic evidence after4 years of surveillance. How can you be so sure they never crossed the border? Add that to the fact the feds don’t bring charges unless they have a rock solid case, I think your thoughts are wishful thinking rather than based in reality.

Moosepatrol: "

yogi59weedr: "I haven't posted since last spring, but I think this is the beginning of the end to the truck portage at Prairie Portage."

Bingo!


I have know LaTourells all my life. And their is a lot more to the story.


This is not about felony charges for minnows.


It is about closing the truck portage and banning motors.


LaTourells where not netting illegally or on the Canadian side. Why were thy not ticketed on the Canadian side 4 years ago?





"

From what I can see, this is not about the truck portage, motorized use, or anything like that. The Wilderness Act and the Lacey Act are completely separate laws, one governing land use and the other dealing only with the illegal take and subsequent transport of wildlife.

I think part of the confusion for all of this stems from the issue that arose around 2015-ish (?), where the Superior National Forest HQ apparently made the sudden "discovery" that there was a commercial Cisco harvest going on in the BW sans permission from them, which had been occurring for quite some time. The ensuing articles in several newspapers covered that extensively - to include the SNF halting the activity, the involvement of elected officials, and I believe a one-year "grace period" being granted before it was permanently halted.

That was still being talked about when the search warrants were executed in 2016. People then assumed that it was all part of a single affair. And some horrid reporting in at least one paper I can think of didn't help.

While the Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary agency with respect to enforcement of the Lacey Act, they DO NOT enforce the Wilderness Act, as they don't manage those kinds of federal lands (they have Wildlife Refuges, and there are separate laws covering the activities that take place there). There is also no reference to the WA in the press release. If there were charges for that, I think you'd see it there.

thefourofus: "I know some about the Lacey Act as my company imports raw materials and so we have to go through some training. I believe a misdemeanor charge carries a possibility of a fine up to $100,000 for an individual and up to 1 year in prison. The mention of thousands of dollars would lead me to believe that this would be a misdemeanor. The cases we were given for examples involved hundreds of thousands or millions and almost always were misdemeanors. Also in those cases, I never saw where anyone went to jail. I'm sure it has happened, but never did I see that. Always a fine. The fines could also be higher than the $100,000 if any kind of restitution needs to be made. Now every case we were shown as examples involved medium to larger corporations and not a family owned business, so this could be different. Also, the Lacey Act is applicable to anyone who buys and sells illegally sourced imported goods. All buyers/resellers are culpable if they know or should know the illegal source of the goods. Certainly if the bait shops or gas stations have no way of knowing that these were being caught across the border, then I don't think they would be charged, but I'm guessing that is why they were raided to find any evidence of "awareness".


As for this case, I'm an outsider as I don't know any of the individuals involved, but it sure seems to me that 8 years is a bit ridiculous to accomplish what they seem to want to accomplish and that being to stop illegally harvested Cisco. I'm thinking the four years to charge them stems from the case sitting on someones desk for 3 1/2 years and they decided to finally move on it. At least I hope. If our tax payer money paid for the prosecutor and investigators for 4 years, the fines won't hardly cover it. 4 years also makes this case so much harder to prosecute. They mentioned a half dozen agencies involved. Are all the possible witnesses still available? A good lawyer could probably poke all kinds of holes in testimony from witnesses trying to remember 4 years (or more) back. Again, just ridiculous. It probably will never make it to court though. Since charges are now filed, the defendants can look at the evidence. Depending on what they see, I'm guessing they will come up with some sort of settlement. Again, just a guess as I know nothing about the case. "

I don't think the issue of whether the fines cover the cost of the investigation is how decisions are made. If it's a serious violation, they work it. Sometimes the penalty is high enough that it seems like justice. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes guilty people get off scot free. That doesn't mean they think to themselves: "yeah, they might get a crappy fine, so let's not even bother..."

Of course, wildlife cases are always pointed to as a "waste," but if that's so, someone probably would have disbanded all natural resource agencies a long time ago. The fact is, compared to the FBI, DEA, or anyone with a homeland security or anti-terrorism nexus, agencies like FWS, Park Service, state DNR's, etc. get a pitiful amount of resources and while case may seem to be about "just a couple of deer" or just "minnows," this is the mission they're tasked with fulfilling and what they're SUPPOSED to be spending money on

yogi59weedr: "While not saying anyone did anything illegal or skirting the system, per previous post..
How a group staying at La T. get a weeks worth of day motor permits 18 yrs in a row to fish Basswood....
Again not saying somebody is doing anything illegal.
Maybe skirting the system... idk....
I've seen with my own eyes boats leave LaT.
Enter the BWCA in the morning. Come back out. Then go back out in the evening... Does this not go against the rules....



Oh boy .... now I did it.....


Or get like 80% of available permits....
Again would just like to know"

I was under the impression those motor day permits were near impossible to get, for a group to get a whole weeks worth...wow that seems really lucky, but maybe I am wrong...just going By what others have posted about their experiences in the past.

timatkn: "

yogi59weedr: "While not saying anyone did anything illegal or skirting the system, per previous post..
How a group staying at La T. get a weeks worth of day motor permits 18 yrs in a row to fish Basswood....
Again not saying somebody is doing anything illegal.
Maybe skirting the system... idk....
I've seen with my own eyes boats leave LaT.
Enter the BWCA in the morning. Come back out. Then go back out in the evening... Does this not go against the rules....



Oh boy .... now I did it.....



Or get like 80% of available permits....
Again would just like to know"

I was under the impression those motor day permits were near impossible to get, for a group to get a whole weeks worth...wow that seems really lucky, but maybe I am wrong...just going By what others have posted about their experiences in the past."

Coming and going with Day motor permits is Aok, it’s the process by which those permits were obtained that seems suspicious to all those of us who have gotten locked out year after year.

I remember specifically that thread where somebody boasted of having a weeks worth of moose>basswood DM’s very year since 99 or something. I emailed the user looking for advice on how one gets so lucky. They wanted me to call them for details- “ I am not going to write any more but would be happy to comment via phone.”

Some nuggets that made me scratch my head: “ If you want to make sure you can motor into Basswood, the outfitters will always have an advantage on permits.” And “ Once you are under their umbrella, they will explain how to get enough permits for a week/weekend/whatever.”

All of which flies directly in the face of the rules and procedures.

I think I will wait for the evidence to come out at the trial before I give my opinion about an investigation I was not involved in. Over the years I have found this to be a good way to not make statements that later show how wrong I was.

mutz: "I think I will wait for the evidence to come out at the trial before I give my opinion about an investigation I was not involved in. Over the years I have found this to be a good way to not make statements that later show how wrong I was."

Smart!!

"The defendants unlawfully imported, possessed, transported, and sold ciscoes for thousands of dollars of profit to bait retailers in Minnesota in violation of the Lacey Act."

Could someone help me understand the heart of these charges. Are the defendants accused of a crime only because they crossed the border into Canada in order to net these Cisco's? What I'm asking is if the accused had stayed on the Minnesota side of the wilderness would the defendant still have been committing a crime? More specifically, is it legal to net Cisco on the Minnesota (BWCAW) side of the wilderness, package them up, and sell them to bait shops for profit assuming they had all the appropriate permits etc?

mutz: "I think I will wait for the evidence to come out at the trial before I give my opinion about an investigation I was not involved in. Over the years I have found this to be a good way to not make statements that later show how wrong I was."

Wise words.

mutz: "I think I will wait for the evidence to come out at the trial before I give my opinion about an investigation I was not involved in. Over the years I have found this to be a good way to not make statements that later show how wrong I was."

I think I will spray the Internet with cyberbullets and then yell, "Take that, you varmints!"

What?

What's that you say?

Best to follow Mutz's lead?

Oh.

Okay.

HangLoose: "


Could someone help me understand the heart of these charges. Are the defendants accused of a crime only because they crossed the border into Canada in order to net these Cisco's? What I'm asking is if the accused had stayed on the Minnesota side of the wilderness would the defendant still have been committing a crime? More specifically, is it legal to net Cisco on the Minnesota (BWCAW) side of the wilderness, package them up, and sell them to bait shops for profit assuming they had all the appropriate permits etc? "

HangLoose,
I am a 16 year veteran of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, retired firefighter, I never was a LEO, however I worked with LEO's my whole career and on a few cases.

Your question could be best answered by a lawyer, I can't help you much.
I am quite sure that one can be in Violation of the Lacey Act without crossing an international border. The Lacey Act is a very broad law, covering a whole realm of issues.

Here are a couple links for you to research till your hearts content.

One Link

Another Link

And one more in lay-mens terms.

HangLoose: ""The defendants unlawfully imported, possessed, transported, and sold ciscoes for thousands of dollars of profit to bait retailers in Minnesota in violation of the Lacey Act."


Could someone help me understand the heart of these charges. Are the defendants accused of a crime only because they crossed the border into Canada in order to net these Cisco's? What I'm asking is if the accused had stayed on the Minnesota side of the wilderness would the defendant still have been committing a crime? More specifically, is it legal to net Cisco on the Minnesota (BWCAW) side of the wilderness, package them up, and sell them to bait shops for profit assuming they had all the appropriate permits etc? "

When this was explained back in 2016, the only legal issue in this specific case was with the netting/seining took place in Canadian waters. Albeit may have only been yards into Canada (conjecture). This all started when a Canadian Ranger was unexpectedly at Prairie Portage (Harvest occurs well after Prairie was shut down each year) and observed the harvesting taking place allegedly in Canadian waters and reported it to authorities.

As far as if it was legal if it took place exclusively on the US side, at the time of harvest the answer was yes, but there was an argument. The FS argued it violated the wilderness act since it was for commercial purposes, the while the harvesters argued it was not and had support of some politicians. The harvest was allowed while in dispute so was legal. There are details I am sure I don’t know but that’s the gist of it...

T

timatkn: "

HangLoose: ""The defendants unlawfully imported, possessed, transported, and sold ciscoes for thousands of dollars of profit to bait retailers in Minnesota in violation of the Lacey Act."



Could someone help me understand the heart of these charges. Are the defendants accused of a crime only because they crossed the border into Canada in order to net these Cisco's? What I'm asking is if the accused had stayed on the Minnesota side of the wilderness would the defendant still have been committing a crime? More specifically, is it legal to net Cisco on the Minnesota (BWCAW) side of the wilderness, package them up, and sell them to bait shops for profit assuming they had all the appropriate permits etc? "

When this was explained back in 2016, the only legal issue in this specific case was with the netting/seining took place in Canadian waters. Albeit may have only been yards into Canada (conjecture). This all started when a Canadian Ranger was unexpectedly at Prairie Portage (Harvest occurs well after Prairie was shut down each year) and observed the harvesting taking place allegedly in Canadian waters and reported it to authorities.


As far as if it was legal if it took place exclusively on the US side, at the time of harvest the answer was yes, but there was an argument. The FS argued it violated the wilderness act since it was for commercial purposes, the while the harvesters argued it was not and had support of some politicians. The harvest was allowed while in dispute so was legal. There are details I am sure I don’t know but that’s the gist of it...


T"

This. I remember a particular article quoting someone as saying the netting in BW had been going on for 50 years. While it's plausible that the SNF HQ didn't know about it, I find it difficult to believe that none of the local (Ely) FS folks didn't know. But that's just me.

Thanks LindenTree and Timatkn. I wanted to make an intelligent opinion on this case but now it seems that this case is best sorted out by the attorneys.

These charges for me personally will not change the love or respect I have for the accused.

missmolly: "Embarrassing to be caught as a sneak and to be known as someone who stole from the Canadians, generally the sweetest people and our best allies. "

What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty in a court of law? Lot of people in this thread don’t believe in that concept. I get it you like Canadians but it hasn’t
been proven that anybody stole anything yet. Everyone gets their day in court, until that happens all you know about this is just a bunch of internet chatter.

For the people that are wondering about the Lacey Act, it can be violated by crossing state lines with wildlife that has been illegally taken or illegal to posses in another state or not properly tagged and cross a state line.

Frankie_Paull: "These charges for me personally will not change the love or respect I have for the accused. "

+1

Conspiracy to violate the Lacey act.

They are being accused of having a secret plan to get minnows.

The MNDNR won,t touch this for a reason.

How would you prove someone was a foot over the border 4 years ago? You can not see the border from the Canadian side of Prairie Portage where the nets are set.

These are middle class rural Minnesotans. They don't have the money to take on the Federal Government.

JackpineJim: "

Frankie_Paull: "These charges for me personally will not change the love or respect I have for the accused. "

+1"

Moosepatrol: "Conspiracy to violate the Lacey act.


They are being accused of having a secret plan to get minnows.


The MNDNR won,t touch this for a reason.


How would you prove someone was a foot over the border 4 years ago? You can not see the border from the Canadian side of Prairie Portage where the nets are set.


These are middle class rural Minnesotans. They don't have the money to take on the Federal Government."

Well all we have is conjecture at this point. None of us really “know” anything about this case. I do believe you are incorrect about the border and Prairie Portage.

It is very easy to see if you are fishing over the border at Prairie portage. Last year I watched the Ranger standing there yelling at people boating and fishing over the border. It was obvious they were fishing on the Canadian side. It was embarrassing as an American to see blatant disregard for our neighbors border. She told me they ticket people all the time when an enforcement officer is present—-otherwise all she can do is take pictures and report. She didn’t yell at people a foot over...they were well over the border fishing.

An outfitter who has been around Basswood for longer than I’ve been alive should also know the border is... if they were only over a foot, my conjecture is this case will get thrown out. One can make a reasonable argument it was a mistake. But does that sound reasonable to you? Allegedly the Feds and Canadians have 4 years of evidence...historically Federal cases don’t get charged unless they have a rock solid case—-maybe this case is different as you say but history would not indicate that. I actually hope every thing you say is correct and this case gets thrown out or there was an innocent mistake. That is the best outcome for all involved. We are probably not going to know for a long time though.

2016 Mpls. Tribune:
Investigators watched year after year in late October and early November as the fish were netted during their spawning season directly in front of a Canada Customs cabin, the document said. The cabin normally is unoccupied at that time of year. Some of the netting was filmed by a hidden camera inside the cabin. Agents hiding in the woods also witnessed the activity.

As described in the court document written by Ron Kramer, a Duluth-based U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent who heads the investigation, the family members would beach their boat on an island in late afternoon, wade into water and empty their catch into tubs as darkness fell. They returned by boat to their home — a meandering ride of more than 20 minutes across Minnesota’s Sucker, Newfound and Moose lakes

2016

The island is less than 50 wide. It is at the bottom of the rapids and the border is drawn down the middle. The nets are set in a few feet of water at the bottom of the rapids from the island towards shore, which is about 50? feet wide in the current. Are they saying the boat was over the border?

I was not there, so I can not say 100%. This is my understanding of how and where it was done for decades.

Remember this is “conspiracy “.

Conspiracy doesn’t have to be some secret nefarious plot to murder somebody. For legal purposes:

“An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.”

Too bad TGO isn't around. He claimed to have some insight into this, being somewhat intimately involved on the downstream end of the deal.

Moosepatrol: "Conspiracy to violate the Lacey act.


They are being accused of having a secret plan to get minnows.


The MNDNR won,t touch this for a reason.


How would you prove someone was a foot over the border 4 years ago? You can not see the border from the Canadian side of Prairie Portage where the nets are set.


These are middle class rural Minnesotans. They don't have the money to take on the Federal Government."

So what is the reason you believe the MN-DNR " won't touch this...". The press release says it was a joint investigation WITH the MN-DNR.

If you're referring to the DNR not charging it, themselves, you can't charge violations of federal law in state court, anyway. An agency like the DNR can, however, work a case with another agency which plans to bring charges in their jurisdiction. The DNR does it all the time with Ontario (and vice versa).

I don't know if anyone is guilty of anything yet, but I do know a bit about how the federal courts work, and there likely would not be charges for someone being "a foot" over the border. For charges like this, the government undoubtedly believes that they can prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that a violation was knowingly committed.

I have been going to the BWCA, and the areas in question, for 60 years. I have a causal acquaintance with those charged and have stayed at their resort many times, as well as other resorts on the chain. The defendants family has lived on the edge of that wilderness for as long as I have been going there - 20 miles from nearest town. The people who live in that area are not "city" people and all know each other. It is likely that the accused socializes with the Immigrations, Customs and Forest Services people that live there also - probably even the Canadian border patrol folks. Not to excuse lawbreaking, but the use of that area is legally complicated. Just look at the netting issue in question - yeah you can do it, here's your permit, well maybe not, no you can't, politicians intervene and all of a sudden it's yeah, keep going while we figure it out. Even if technically illegal my guess is that no one was surprised and probably even tacitly sanctioned what had been going on for years. There is no reason that if they were suspected of shading the border, someone couldn't have just said hey, cut it out otherwise we're going to fine you and pull your operator permit. That would have ended it right there.
Special interest groups have been harassing the permit and resort operators for years. They're always suing the State and Fed regarding permit technicalities, how they're counted, how they're used, the portage, etc. Years ago they won a temporary decision to restrict the use of trucks pulling boats over the portage. The portage operator than had to rely on the local football team, and portage users, to push/pull boats over on a custom made sled. If they can't get the Fed to change the BWCA laws to keep people out of the BWCAW then they're going to harass the resort operators out of business to effectively the same end. Same with home owners on the border lakes.